You focus on the allowed beating of slaves. If slaves are lazy and insubordinate then they need some incentive to work (i.e. a beating). The bible doesn't tell masters they must beat their slaves. It says beating is allowed, being that it is necessary as an incentive to work. In fact, some slaves became slaves voluntarily, and thus were probably effecient workers for their masters. They probably never needed incentive to work because they knew what they were getting in to, thus beatings weren't necessary. Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free. Why? Were they sadist or masochist? No, I'm sure they had pleasant relationships with their masters because they did what was asked of them and needed no beatings as incentive.

Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free.

Yes, a master strips you down, takes every possession he granted them permission to have, and cuts them free into the world with not a penny to their name, and MAYBE, if they're lucky, the clothes on their back. I can see why they'd want to go running out into the world.

The Bible says that you can beat your slaves, but doesn't say that you have to? What a profound and timeless moral code it brings to us!

Also: if slaves became slaves voluntarily, why call them slaves? Why does the lack of violent beatings prove that the relationship is pleasant? And why do you see nothing wrong with the extremes of inherent inequality that slavery represents? Please bring up this slavery-justifying drivel next time a more moderate Christian brings up how the Bible supports the idea of equality. Pretty please?